Applicant applied to this Court for condonation of late filing of an appeal. Respondent opposed the application. The intended appeal is against the judgement of the Court referenced LC/H/171/19. The judgment is dated the 14 June 2019. This application was filed on the 22nd January 2020. Thus the extent of the delay in filing the appeal is almost 6 (six) months. I consider that to be an inordinate delay. The Applicant’s attorney stated that the delay is not inordinate. Applicant was requiredto seek leave to appeal within 21 days, but didso 5-6 months later. I consider it is disingenuous to... More
This is an appeal against the decision of the designated authority which upheld the Appellant’s dismissal at his workplace.
The basic facts of the case are that Appellant was dismissed on 22/07/2011 following a hearing into allegations that he had contravened section (4) (h) of Statutory Instrument 165/92 (gross incompetence inefficiency in the performance of his work)
The charges in question arose from the fact that certain bearings which had been under his care and custody had been discovered to be missing following a stock take by his superiors. Further to that various other items which were also kept at... More
Applicant applied to this Court for condonation of a late appeal in terms of Rule 22 of the Labour Court Rules S.I. 150.17. Respondent opposed the application. More
1. That the Notice of Response is fatally defective for want of form:
Rule 19(2) of the Labour Court Rules, 2017 requires a party to file his response in the prescribed form called LC2. Appellant alleged that the Response in casu does not comply with the requirement. A comparison of the response and Form LC 2 shows that the only difference is absence of the inscription “LC2” at the top right corner. The inscription is meant to identify the forms in the Rules.
It is not necessary that a party’s response in their pleadings be inscribed by the Form’s notation.... More
